Can Christians agree on this?

[biblestudent78]

Okay bs, I will begin by sharing two teachings of Paul:

TOP #10: Although God’s creation reveals His power and love, godless people suppress truth and exchange it for the lie of idolatry. [Rom. 1:18-25, cf. #3] This is what Adam and Eve did (Gen. 3:1-7, cf. 2Thes. 2:10-13). Paul says men are without excuse, because God’s eternal power and moral nature (love) are manifested by creation (Rom. 1:20). Apparently, creation combined with conscience or moral sense (Rom. 2:14-16) that manifests a moral Authority TOP #23) serves as a provisional or proto-gospel (Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8), which is the (general) revelational basis for divine salvation and judgment (TOP #24-26 & 281).

TOP #23: For Gentiles, their moral consciences will serve as the equivalent of the Mosaic Law for divine judgment. [Rom. 2:12-16] Sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Rom. 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

Now here is what I have shared on the Kerygma thread:

An obvious question to ask at this point is, “What is GRFS (God's requirement for salvation) for those who have never heard of Jesus?” (which includes everyone living B.C. and millions of people who have lived A.D.) If God loves the world (John 3:16) and wants everyone to be saved (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11), then He must provide an opportunity. God’s just judgment is illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-29), which indicates that God will judge souls on the basis of the truth (Word = Christ per John 1:1f.) they have received.

There are two main ways God/Christ is encountered:

1. General revelation, which includes meditating on the natural world or God’s supernatural work and moral conscience. Paul said men are without excuse, both because God’s eternal power and divine nature (love) are manifested by creation (Rom. 1:20), and because a proto-gospel has been proclaimed to everyone under heaven implicitly or in pre-NT foreshadowings (Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8). He also taught that all normal humans have an inner conscience or “common” sense (Rom. 2:14-16), which manifests morality or a moral Authority in every culture, beginning with the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12).

2. Special revelation (the OT and NT).

And here is what I have said on the Apologetics thread:

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically (aka general revelation). The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

What do you think of this insight regarding genrev that is not taught in churches I have attended?

Great response. It is a lot to unpack.
Observations: The Hebrew Bible was exclusively for one tiny population and geography. Thus, any consideration of even the word gentile did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew word for that world of non-Jews was Goyim (the nations). As far as I can determine your doctrine of special revelation outside Judah/Samaria did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. There were God's people the Jews and their converts and the rest of the world worshipped false gods, idols etc.

To me it is illogical to say that someone that does not see the Jewish or Christian God does so because they are evil. All who accepted the Jewish God and the Christian God are also evil.

As I have noted before any literal reading of Gen 3:1-7 only demonstrates that God+ put evil in the garden. If He is omnipotent God+ would have known exactly that They were destroying sinless mankind for some bigger purpose. One observation worth consideration is that Adam and Eve could not worship God+. They had a form of employer-employee relationship. They tended the garden for God+. There is no worship involved. Only after Eve was seduced by the snake, by telling her the truth...that she would suddenly discover the difference of good and evil and not die on the day she ate of it (strangely she did not know the difference between good evil before her discovery). There is no evidence in this passage that Adam and Eve were created eternal. God+ became fearful that now Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil and had thus become like one of the Gods, so they had be prevented from being eternal as well.

Your 2 Thessalonians citation is way out of context. Paul is talking about the arrival of the evil one at the end of time and not about general revelation. The same for your citation of Roman 1. Paul is talking about people who have come to worship idols. He alludes to the fact they had options but never explains what those option might be. His frame is that the natural world should have brought them to know God, but he never says that about Jews or Christians who are told by Paul that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. So for Christians the "natural world" is insufficient and one must hear the word of God for salvation.

If general revelation were the path to God for all, then why did Jesus have to come? Why not focus on silent meditation about the beauty of nature. Nepal and Bhutan would, by the definition of your claims of general revelation, be the most Godly places on earth.

 

[rewriter]

Great response. It is a lot to unpack.
Observations: The Hebrew Bible was exclusively for one tiny population and geography. Thus, any consideration of even the word gentile did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew word for that world of non-Jews was Goyim (the nations). As far as I can determine your doctrine of special revelation outside Judah/Samaria did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. There were God's people the Jews and their converts and the rest of the world worshipped false gods, idols etc.

To me it is illogical to say that someone that does not see the Jewish or Christian God does so because they are evil. All who accepted the Jewish God and the Christian God are also evil.

As I have noted before any literal reading of Gen 3:1-7 only demonstrates that God+ put evil in the garden. If He is omnipotent God+ would have known exactly that They were destroying sinless mankind for some bigger purpose. One observation worth consideration is that Adam and Eve could not worship God+. They had a form of employer-employee relationship. They tended the garden for God+. There is no worship involved. Only after Eve was seduced by the snake, by telling her the truth...that she would suddenly discover the difference of good and evil and not die on the day she ate of it (strangely she did not know the difference between good evil before her discovery). There is no evidence in this passage that Adam and Eve were created eternal. God+ became fearful that now Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil and had thus become like one of the Gods, so they had be prevented from being eternal as well.

Your 2 Thessalonians citation is way out of context. Paul is talking about the arrival of the evil one at the end of time and not about general revelation. The same for your citation of Roman 1. Paul is talking about people who have come to worship idols. He alludes to the fact they had options but never explains what those option might be. His frame is that the natural world should have brought them to know God, but he never says that about Jews or Christians who are told by Paul that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. So for Christians the "natural world" is insufficient and one must hear the word of God for salvation.

If general revelation were the path to God for all, then why did Jesus have to come? Why not focus on silent meditation about the beauty of nature. Nepal and Bhutan would, by the definition of your claims of general revelation, be the most Godly places on earth.

This is a very credible response, but it also carries a lot to unpack. It is true that the OT references goyim, not gentiles, but it gets vaguer when it comes to other gods and Israel's special position. Later writings do speak against idols, but that might be viewed more as political speech than truly theological. The OT also references other peoples besides Israel as belonging to God. In fact, it is possible to read most of the OT as promoting henotheism as opposed to monotheism, that is there might well be multiple deities, but only one is worthy of worshop.

As for the nature of evil and God's creation of it, this is also questionable. Evil is often presented as heavily a moral failing, but it might also be seen as a relational failure. God created a physical world where it is possible to perceive oneself as separate from the rest of creation, and choosing to believe that will of necessity lead to moral failure. This simple lie, that one is separable, is accepted by every human over the age of approximately 7 months, well before true cognition develops, and fits Paul's observation in Romans 1:25 that THE truth is available to all, but THE lie is accepted and leads to all sorts of evil acts. It also fits with the declaration in Genesis that when one eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil one will die. Of course, they spiritually die upon separating themselves from the balance of creation, life is something shared within creation, not separable from creation except in the physical form that we call "life".

The distinct ""general" and "special" revelations are misnomers, the "general" revelation reveals God and the value of recognizing our interdependence with the rest of creation. The "special" revelation does the same, with the added, purely post-73 caveat that the primary problem is not relational but moral. The change in emphasis became necessary to distinguish between to close allies in the 1st Jewish war, the Jews and the Christians. Failure to recognize this exceedingly close alliance is due to deliberate actions and statements from both sides to deny it, thus ensuring that at least one side would survive Roman wrath. The evidence supporting this is obscure, and buried by tradition, but hints still shine through both in recorded scripture and obscure, "clearly irrelevant" historical records and archeological finds, including Herodian numismatics where certain features are difficult to explain without recognizing Christianity's and Judaism's historically close alliance.

 

[GWH]

Great response. It is a lot to unpack.
Observations: The Hebrew Bible was exclusively for one tiny population and geography. Thus, any consideration of even the word gentile did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew word for that world of non-Jews was Goyim (the nations). As far as I can determine your doctrine of special revelation outside Judah/Samaria did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. There were God's people the Jews and their converts and the rest of the world worshipped false gods, idols etc.

To me it is illogical to say that someone that does not see the Jewish or Christian God does so because they are evil. All who accepted the Jewish God and the Christian God are also evil.

As I have noted before any literal reading of Gen 3:1-7 only demonstrates that God+ put evil in the garden. If He is omnipotent God+ would have known exactly that They were destroying sinless mankind for some bigger purpose. One observation worth consideration is that Adam and Eve could not worship God+. They had a form of employer-employee relationship. They tended the garden for God+. There is no worship involved. Only after Eve was seduced by the snake, by telling her the truth...that she would suddenly discover the difference of good and evil and not die on the day she ate of it (strangely she did not know the difference between good evil before her discovery). There is no evidence in this passage that Adam and Eve were created eternal. God+ became fearful that now Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil and had thus become like one of the Gods, so they had be prevented from being eternal as well.

Your 2 Thessalonians citation is way out of context. Paul is talking about the arrival of the evil one at the end of time and not about general revelation. The same for your citation of Roman 1. Paul is talking about people who have come to worship idols. He alludes to the fact they had options but never explains what those option might be. His frame is that the natural world should have brought them to know God, but he never says that about Jews or Christians who are told by Paul that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. So for Christians the "natural world" is insufficient and one must hear the word of God for salvation.

If general revelation were the path to God for all, then why did Jesus have to come? Why not focus on silent meditation about the beauty of nature. Nepal and Bhutan would, by the definition of your claims of general revelation, be the most Godly places on earth.

I will number my comments for easier reference:

1. Gentile in the NT refers to Goyim in the Isa. 42:6, 49:6. Okay.

2. Yes, I see no special revelation outside of the NT and OT, viewing any similar moral teachings as due to general revelation.

3. Folks are not accountable for seeing anything God does not reveal, but per Rom. 1:20 general revelation reveals God as Creator and Loving, so folks should not worship idols or behave hatefully.

4. Yes, all humans sin, but those who realize hating is wrong should not be classified as evil.

5. God provided Messiah to atone for the sins of all humanity, both past to Adam and Eve and future until the rapture.

6. 2Thes 2:10 indicates the common basis on which all souls are judged: the truth/GRFS as revealed.

7. Yes, the just consequence for rejecting God revealed via general revelation is less than for rejecting Jesus per the Gospel.
Hell is just, and after justice is achieved, evil souls are destroyed.

Does that make sense/seem right?

 

[biblestudent78]

I will number my comments for easier reference:

1. Gentile in the NT refers to Goyim in the Isa. 42:6, 49:6. Okay.

2. Yes, I see no special revelation outside of the NT and OT, viewing any similar moral teachings as due to general revelation.

3. Folks are not accountable for seeing anything God does not reveal, but per Rom. 1:20 general revelation reveals God as Creator and Loving, so folks should not worship idols or behave hatefully.

4. Yes, all humans sin, but those who realize hating is wrong should not be classified as evil.

5. God provided Messiah to atone for the sins of all humanity, both past to Adam and Eve and future until the rapture.

6. 2Thes 2:10 indicates the common basis on which all souls are judged: the truth/GRFS as revealed.

7. Yes, the just consequence for rejecting God revealed via general revelation is less than for rejecting Jesus per the Gospel.
Hell is just, and after justice is achieved, evil souls are destroyed.

Does that make sense/seem right?

I'm inadequate to judge right and wrong. I work to find coherence, frameworks of understanding and intellectual curiosity. I freely admit to my presuppositions. Scripture is comprised of books deemed canonical long before I was born. I presume one can better understand any book by understanding its genre, it's historical and political setting and the author's intention in writing the book. When it comes to biblical books I assume they were crafted then edited, revised and updated by people unknown with the intention of making them more meaningful to the people of their time. Our opportunity is to pierce, where possible, the final drafts and look closely to determine if anything important was left behind.

 

[GWH]

I'm inadequate to judge right and wrong. I work to find coherence, frameworks of understanding and intellectual curiosity. I freely admit to my presuppositions. Scripture is comprised of books deemed canonical long before I was born. I presume one can better understand any book by understanding its genre, it's historical and political setting and the author's intention in writing the book. When it comes to biblical books I assume they were crafted then edited, revised and updated by people unknown with the intention of making them more meaningful to the people of their time. Our opportunity is to pierce, where possible, the final drafts and look closely to determine if anything important was left behind.

Every sane soul is adequate to judge that they are doomed to die,
which is why 1Cor. 15:19 is the most important verse in the Bible,
because there is no more credible hope for resurrection than Jesus.
Do you find that coherent?

 

[biblestudent78]

Every sane soul is adequate to judge that they are doomed to die,
which is why 1Cor. 15:19 is the most important verse in the Bible,
because there is no more credible hope for resurrection than Jesus.
Do you find that coherent?

That is my hope...my only hope. I might also point out something that bears on the meaning of hope here. verse 1 "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."

So Paul seems to be juxtapositioning two concepts that are linked. "You are saved IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. Christ's resurrection is our hope obedience is our path.

 

[GWH]

That is my hope...my only hope. I might also point out something that bears on the meaning of hope here. verse 1 "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."

So Paul seems to be juxtapositioning two concepts that are linked. "You are saved IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. Christ's resurrection is our hope obedience is our path.

Yes, I also view perseverance as required, although resurrection is key,
and paradoxically, I view the admission of Paul "IF Christ is not raised"
to be very reassuring that he was not some kook, nor lying, but rather
had a rational and even scientific hermeneutic/faith.
IOW, he had tested the reports and was convinced by the evidence,
but he recognized that the rest of us would have to walk without proof,
so he wrote 2Cor. 5:7. This is why my faith in Jesus is also in Paul.

 

[Lovette]

In my understanding, the Holy Trinity is a mechanism, God the Father rules in heaven, God the Son is the access to God between heaven and earth, which are separated by the chasm of sin; God the Spirit rules on earth and draws God's people to God the Son.

 

[GWH]

In my understanding, the Holy Trinity is a mechanism, God the Father rules in heaven, God the Son is the access to God between heaven and earth, which are separated by the chasm of sin; God the Spirit rules on earth and draws God's people to God the Son.

It is weird/unscriptural to view God as a mechanism rather than as a person!

The OT Shema (Deut. 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (Eph. 4:6, 1Tim. 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1 x 1 x 1=1).

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (Matt. 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 4:11, 8:15, Phil. 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Heb. 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (Acts 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (Rom. 8:4-26, 1Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2Pet. 1:21, Jude 20).

We need to discern which aspect of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. These divine aspects or “persons” may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (Gen. 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1Tim. 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (Rom. 5:5). For example, 1John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Gal. 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Eph. 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6).

 

[Lovette]

It is weird/unscriptural to view God as a mechanism rather than as a person!

Only God the Son is a person, God the Father is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and not a man (Num 23:19)
, God the Spirit is spirit. God the Father is only knowable and accessible through God the Son, a relatable human being, and God the Spirit directs you to Him, that's how they work as one.

 

[Lovette]

It is weird/unscriptural to view God as a mechanism rather than as a person!

Also, "God" is not a mechanism, the doctrine of trinity is, for the purpose of teaching how he connects with his church. You think it's weird because it's more of an eastern Orthodox view of the trinity, the key difference is that God the Father is an absolute mystery, totally beyond human understanding, because he as the Creator dwells outside of the creation of time-space continuum we reside it, we can only know about him through everything good in humanity, like justice and virtue and beauty, those are his traits; Catholic and most Protestants, on the other hand, try to comprehend God through human reasoning and interpretation.

 

[GWH]

Only God the Son is a person, God the Father is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and not a man (Num 23:19)
, God the Spirit is spirit. God the Father is only knowable and accessible through God the Son, a relatable human being, and God the Spirit directs you to Him, that's how they work as one.

Personal does not mean only human, but rather having the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), which is manifested visibly via Jesus (John 1:14). Insofar as the invisible personhood of God can be manifested in the human dimension, that person is Jesus (1Tim. 2:3-5).
So, only God the Son is a human; God the Father's person/being is Spirit, not a machine.

Better?

 

[GWH]

Also, "God" is not a mechanism, the doctrine of trinity is, for the purpose of teaching how he connects with his church. You think it's weird because it's more of an eastern Orthodox view of the trinity, the key difference is that God the Father is an absolute mystery, totally beyond human understanding, because he as the Creator dwells outside of the creation of time-space continuum we reside it, we can only know about him through everything good in humanity, like justice and virtue and beauty, those are his traits; Catholic and most Protestants, on the other hand, try to comprehend God through human reasoning and interpretation.

If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship
God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion.

Seven words are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26).

In addition to the omni-attributes related to power, Paul referred to God’s “nature” (in Rom. 1:20), which may be described in three ways: love, truth and justice. These often are called the moral attributes of God.

True?

 

[DavidLamb]

Only God the Son is a person, God the Father is spirit (Jn. 4:24) and not a man (Num 23:19)
, God the Spirit is spirit. God the Father is only knowable and accessible through God the Son, a relatable human being, and God the Spirit directs you to Him, that's how they work as one.

When people talk about the three "Persons" of the Godhead (the Trinity), they don't mean that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all human people. If they did, you would be correct, for only God the Son has (since His incarnation) a human body.

 

[Lovette]

When people talk about the three "Persons" of the Godhead (the Trinity), they don't mean that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all human people. If they did, you would be correct, for only God the Son has (since His incarnation) a human body.

I prefer three "presences". God the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth, the Son in between. A "person" has to be a real human being in flesh and blood, having emotions and physiological needs. Non human beings can be "personified" as a human being, like the sun with a smily face and and sunglasses, but it's still not human.

 

[GWH]

I prefer three "presences". God the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth, the Son in between. A "person" has to be a real human being in flesh and blood, having emotions and physiological needs. Non human beings can be "personified" as a human being, like the sun with a smily face and and sunglasses, but it's still not human.

It is NOT necessary to define person as you do.
You need to ponder the meaning of persons being created in the image of God,
which does NOT refer to physical characteristics/flesh and blood.
It is humans who are personified or made in the God's image rather than animals.

 

[Lovette]

Better?

As I said, God the father is incomprehensible, he's called father from the perspective of the son, a father, in his traditional roles - protector, provider, mentor, leader - is the closest human figure to be associated with God the Father, but still, just the "closest".

True?

Put it in this way, God is the divine order of the universe, through which the whole universe was created, that encompasses all natural "laws" that govern the universe, also social "laws" that govern humans. "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

 

[GWH]

As I said, God the father is incomprehensible, he's called father from the perspective of the son, a father, in his traditional roles - protector, provider, mentor, leader - is the closest human figure to be associated with God the Father, but still, just the "closest".

Put it in this way, God is the divine order of the universe, through which the whole universe was created, that encompasses all natural "laws" that govern the universe, also social "laws" that govern humans. "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

I know you said the Creator is unknowable, which obviously is not correct, because Creation reveals God's power and nature (Rom. 1:20).

That is why I said the NT reveals the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant/incomprehensible, although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely. However, we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship
God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25), because God desires communion. He is revealed most fully via Jesus.

Let us not loop, Lovette.

 

[Lovette]

It is NOT necessary to define person as you do.
You need to ponder the meaning of persons being created in the image of God,
which does NOT refer to physical characteristics/flesh and blood.
It is humans who are personified or made in the God's image rather than animals.

The problem with that is, humans are also made in the image of sinners, Gen. 5:3. Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, the original image was tainted by sin. From there on, you've got a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on, human image deviates further and further from God. Only Jesus was made in the original image of God like Adam and Eve, untainted by sin.

 

[GWH]

The problem with that is, humans are also made in the image of sinners, Gen. 5:3. Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, the original image was tainted by sin. From there on, you've got a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on, human image deviates further and further from God. Only Jesus was made in the original image of God like Adam and Eve, untainted by sin.

No, humans were created very good, NOT as sinners (Gen. 1:31).
Yes, Adam and everyone else has sinned (Rom. 3:23).
Yes, Jesus was untainted, I believe via the Holy Spirit implanting a zygote with clean genes created ex nihilo in Mary's womb.
So, what is the problem with that?